• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trumpcare - Republican Death Panel to allow poor to die

finebead

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
1,734
Reaction score
713
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Jan. 4, 2017

Vice President-elect Mike Pence said Wednesday that repealing the Affordable Care Act was part of keeping promises Republicans -- including President-elect Donald Trump -- made on the campaign trail.

"Make no mistake about it," Pence told reporters after meeting with GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill. "We're going to keep our promise to the American people -- we're going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with solutions that lower the cost of health insurance without growing the size of government."
Mike Pence: GOP will keep promise to repeal Obamacare - CNNPolitics.com

Trump promised to replace Ocare with something better. Anyone can lower the cost of health insurance, if you offer less coverage. Let the insurance companies deny those with pre-existing conditions, kick poor folks off of health insurance and let them die earlier than technology would allow.

The Republicans will be the Death Panel.

Medical Ethics dictates that it is wrong to deny life saving treatment over the ability to pay.

Decisions regarding the allocation of limited medical resources among patients should consider only ethically appropriate criteria relating to medical need. These criteria include likelihood of benefit, urgency of need, change in quality of life, duration of benefit, and, in some cases, the amount of resources required for successful treatment. In general, only very substantial differences among patients are ethically relevant; the greater the disparities, the more justified the use of these criteria becomes. In making quality of life judgments, patients should first be prioritized so that death or extremely poor outcomes are avoided; then, patients should be prioritized according to change in quality of life, but only when there are very substantial differences among patients. Non-medical criteria, such as ability to pay, age, social worth, should not be considered.
VM -- , Apr 11 ... Virtual Mentor

That is the reason that President Reagan signed a bill to end the practice of hospitals not accepting patients in emergency situations if they may not have the ability to pay.

April 5, 2011

It was called "dumping." Very simply, prior to the implementation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986, a patient coming into a hospital emergency department often had no right to treatment or even evaluation, no matter how dire his or her condition. If patients could not prove that they had the resources to pay for care, they could be turned away or sent elsewhere—sometimes in a taxi, or on foot. They often suffered adverse health consequences and sometimes they died.

"Indefensible" is an appropriate term. Ron Anderson, M.D., CEO of Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, was the director of the emergency department at Parkland in the 1980s, and he knew all about dumping. "I would see patients transferred with knives still in their backs, or women giving birth at the door of the hospital, simply because they were uninsured."

<snip>

Parkland recorded calls from transferring hospitals. In one, a physician said he wanted to transfer a woman with heart failure who was in the ICU. When the Parkland physician asked for more information, the other physician replied, "She does not have any insurance, the hospital does not want to take care of her, OK? This is a private, capitalistic, money-making hospital"

<snip>

EMTALA represented the first time that anyone other than prison inmates gained an affirmative right to treatment. "Before EMTALA, patients only had rights if they were already in care in hospitals. They had the right to refuse treatment, the right to change physicians, and the right to walk away, but they had no right to care in the first place. This was the first recognition of a patient's general legal right to receive health care,".

<snip>

Mariner concludes, "EMTALA changed the baseline. It changed the expectations of both patients and physicians, and the concept of what people are entitled to."
And from Anderson, who fought so hard and for so long to do something about the dumping: "I think getting EMTALA passed may be the most important thing we ever did. It was and is a moral imperative."


How EMTALA Transformed Health Care - Hospitals and Health Networks

 
Someday they'll let us know what their brilliant solution is.

Maybe a few years from now.
 
Someday they'll let us know what their brilliant solution is.

Maybe a few years from now.

Something about cross borders and vouchers.
 
Trump promised universal healthcare during his candidacy.

 
Anyone who no longer believes in the easter bunny knew Trump was lying when he said he wanted universal coverage. It was just a case of "say anything to get elected, then do whatever you want".

March 7, 2017

The Republican party had seven years to draft a replacement for the Affordable Care Act. House leadership finally unveiled a plan Monday night, only to see it immediately re-veiled -- with a death shroud. The proposed bill manages to do about four things successfully: It cuts taxes for wealthy people, ends Medicaid as we know it to help pay for those tax cuts, reduces the number of Americans who can afford health insurance, and angers such a wide variety of voting constituencies that it is effectively dead on arrival. That's bad news for anyone hoping for a relatively quick and orderly transition from the ACA. But the dysfunction may actually be good news for hospitals and Medicaid-focused insurers. Shares of those companies have crashed since President Donald Trump's election, on the assumption the ACA's Medicaid expansion would be wiped out. But in this bill, cuts to the program are delayed by several years. And the fact that the proposal is so very unviable reduces the downside risk even further.
https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/ar...se-obamacare-replacement-plan-is-already-dead

But in one of the biggest cruelest lies, we are going to reduce healthcare to poor people and let their bankruptcy and death rates rise, instead of taking on big pharma, the hospitals, and the insurance companies. Many people have stood up in the town hall meetings recently to say their lives were saved by Obamacare. Those lives won't be saved in the future. So much for the party of "pro life".
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom